Tuesday, July 23, 2013

A Prince of Cambridge

Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their first child - a son; a prince of Cambridge; a future king.

The Queen must feel a great sense of great joy and fulfilment in witnessing the next three generations of the House of Windsor - the first monarch to do so since Queen Victoria. They are inculcated with a sense of duty and an understanding of consistency. We now have four supreme governors of the Church of England lined up very nicely, to be the guardians of the Church’s authoritative formularies, its polity and its confessional identity of affirmation and restraint. They provide ecclesial continuity, theological identity and doctrinal stability..

It is odd to think of Diana, Princess of Wales, becoming a grandmother: she feels somehow frozen in a time of elegance and perpetual youth. But her spirit lives on in this new life.

His Grace will write further when the name of this future king is known. In the meantime, here is the Church of England's Prayer for the Royal Baby:

God our Creator,
who knows each of us by name
and loves us from all eternity:
we give you thanks for new life and human love.
Bless William and Catherine
as they welcome their son into the world.
Give them patience and wisdom
to cherish and love him as he grows.
Surround the family with the light of hope and the warmth of your love today and always; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.

120 Comments:

Very pleased for them, but I wish the media would desist from its barrage of inane drivel.

Queen Victoria got a brief announcement in the Times in 1819, and having waded through nigh on 20 pages worth in the same newspaper this morning I can't help but think that the late Regency readers got the better deal.

"We now have four supreme governors of the Church of England lined up very nicely, to be the guardians of the Church’s authoritative formularies, its polity and its confessional identity of affirmation and restraint. They provide ecclesial continuity, theological identity and doctrinal stability.."

Goodness! Guardians in what sense? There doesn't seem to have been much 'guarding' of theological identity just recently, does there?

The safe birth of a healthy boy is excellent news of enormous importance, Your Grace. No fewer than sixteen nations are directly and beneficially affected, giving the innocent babe more political influence than any other child on the face of the Earth.

That the child is a boy saves us the anguish and potential dynastic instability that will surely be the result of Dave's reforms to the succession. The last War of the Cousins didn't turn out too well, we don't need another.

"We now have four supreme governors of the Church of England lined up very nicely, to be the guardians of the Church’s authoritative formularies, its polity and its confessional identity of affirmation and restraint. They provide ecclesial continuity, theological identity and doctrinal stability.."

So do we think that God's truth sort of, err, evolves and that our forbears, err, got it completely wrong?

I think not.

Our Orthodox and Roman brethren, not to mention the Anglican Global south, plus more than a few Anglican traditionalists here and across the pond, are not so persuaded.

Incremental minor adjustments may be, yes, to reflect the deeper understandings revealed by modern scholarship and scientific advances; but not reversals of positions clearly set out in Scripture and Tradition, and which continues to be supported by science and social sciences.

God will judge. History will bear witness to the truth. Revisionists and heretics will stumble and fall, whilst the truth will endure.

If same sex activity is blessed or even condoned by The Church of England many valuable priests and lay members, me included, will ponder their futures, temporal and eternal.

A new baby is always joyful news. I am so thankful it is a boy - one in the eye for that prat Clegg who would have liked to be seen prancing around claiming that he will go down in history for tinkering with the Act of Succession. At least that can of worms can be shelved for now, and Clegg can take his rightful place in history as the nonentity he is.

After the queen's complete capitulation to the world, the flesh and the devil last week, I couldn't care less about royal babies and heirs to the throne. What purpose do the royals actually serve now? They stand for nothing (exactly like this cesspool of a country, in fact).

Unless intrinsic to that theological identity is incremental mutability.

I'm a bit puzzled by this. When Newman published his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, the mainstream Anglican response was to reject it. The point being that if doctrine develops then simply appealing to scripture becomes inadequate, secondly, all the developments of Rome are permissible and thirdly, because antiquity is, by itself, no longer the criterion for knowing you have preserved God's revelation faithfully, you need a living teaching (like the papacy) to hold it all together.

So Anglicans at the time rejected it.

Mrs Proudie, perhaps you can help us out here - what lack of guardianship are you talking about?

Why don't you just take your tiresome battle directly to The Tablet and pin your theses on its heretical door? They claim to be Roman Catholic; His Grace does not. Surely they are more worthy of your correction-and-rebuke mantra, since they purport to belong to your church?

Dear Albert, I was thinking on a definition of guardianship that means keeping something safe...and then thinking about coronation oaths and things now felt to be old-fashioned and therefore irrelevant to modern mores. His Grace has pointed (most graciously) to incremental mutability and one wonders how mutable our Church (and society) are going to have to be in the future, when demographics change and appeasement to all things secular gathers pace.

The Church of England, and England, in 1845, when Newman published his essay, was considerably more knee-jerk Protestant than it would later become. Newman was effectively defending the Papacy, which would have led many Anglicans at the time to reject it on principle. By 1845 Newman could barely write a shopping list without it being rejected as Papist, which is why he swam the Tiber the same year.

That notwithstanding, the Church of England has always been prepared to incrementally adapt itself and its teaching to prevailing circumstances, and that has awlways caused controversy within its own ranks; it's as Anglican as old ladies cycling to Evensong.

Dear dear Bluedog, it does seem so...but never fear, the BBC have wonderful electronic gadgetry these days so by the time the crowd scenes are broadcast there will have been some mutability in transmission...

At the moment, two opposing viewpoints within the C of E are represented on Anglican Mainstream. There's the dreadful, follow the crowd "Changing Attitudes" piece and the "Standing our ground" one, much closer to my approach.

How people can dump superbly thought out, well proven, ancient doctrine and teachings, given by intellectual giants of theology, well grounded in Scripture, Tradition and still today, substantiated by Reason, on the grounds that we must be "loving", which just means, anything goes, just say "yes", is beyond my comprehension. What is loving about encouraging disorder?

I conjecture that the remnant that will remain within Protestantism, within the west anyway, will draw strength both from their orthodox friends in the global south, where many forms of Christianity are burgeoning, and their Roman and Orthodox brethren. The remnant will stand, and flourish.

Oh, come on, Cranmer. We don't want the blog turning into the conservative version of the Guardian, do we? And you're no slouch yourself when it comes to burying the hobnail. Do you ever hear the slightest peep of complaint from Corrigan's direction? Between you an me, I'm bound to admit that Catholic sites are apt to be fretsome about such issues as whether or not one should genuflect to the Pope on the right or left knee (it's the left, btw, should you ever meet him) and if making the Stations of the Cross constitutes a partial or a plenary indulgence. Much more fun here, bearding all bearding Carl and Avi.

" That notwithstanding, the Church of England (ditto Rome ?!) has always been prepared to incrementally adapt itself and its teaching to prevailing circumstances,and that has awlways caused controversy within its own ranks;"Dear Pot..Hello Kettle. Obviously you know nothing of the writings of the early church fathers and how it contrasts with RC evolved heretical teaching up to the present. *Hilarious Chuckling*!!!

In one event the utter pointlessness of gay marriage is revealed. For what (hypothetically speaking) would the Duke and ... what ...the other Duke? ...of Cambridge do to produce an heir? Hire a Royal Incubator? It would seem marriage and children are not so disconnected as moderns would desire. At least not as far as the Royal Family is concerned. One has obligations.

Here's my opinion, as a Traditionalist Classical Anglican, for what it's worth.

I agree with you, that no one seeks a rigid conformity on this site, well not me anyway. Otherwise how could one learn?

But whilst I find the learned teasings of Uncle Albert's approach say, very acceptable, instructive even occasionally, your all out , in your face, insulting attack on Anglicanism, is indeed tiresome, and achieves nothing except to irritate.

There will probably be an EU directive declaring the royal child gender neutral, and politically correct in all aspects.I wonder what the twin gods of equality and diversity will permit the child to be named?

1) I made no value judgement on Anglicanism whatsoever; I simply stated a characteristic of it which I don't thing anyone here would dispute.

2) All Churches adapt to an extent; as I say, I made no value judgement. The Roman Catholic Church has claimed the right to interpret Scripture and make doctrine; you disagree with that, but as we no longer (thank God) live in a theocracy you're not obliged too are you? At least the Roman Church's doctrine can actually be contrasted with Scripture by its critics, because unlike the Church of England's we actually know what it is.

3) I know a fair amount about the Church fathers, though my teaching areas are Mediaeval, Reformation and Modern.

4) I don't agree with your views, but I'm perfectly respectful of them. Whilst we both know that RC and Protestants comsider each other heretics in the theological sense, I don't see how bandying those terms about as insults does anyone any good, especially when there is no need.

Take a deep breath and stroke Tiddles, old chap; I am not a member of the so-called cyber Swiss Guard around here, so there's no need to treat me as such.

Ok, David, so I'm the last of the Spanish Inquisitors. You should know alway to expect the Spanish Inquisition, and what would this blog be without Corrigan leaping out from behind doors at inappropriate moments to the sound of sinister music?

If nothing else, I have, in all seriousness, learned one thing since joining this blog: there actually are Anglicans who take the Church of England seriously. I'm not saying this to get a rise; I had genuinely believed that the CofE was made up more of English traditionalists with a hazy view of history than people who actually believe in Anglicanism. It really, genuinely does surprise me. If I have appeared inappropriately aggressive, perhaps that is because, under assumed identities, I fight the good fight on other forums, usually against that most noxious of the modern world's spewings, the New Atheist. Engaging with them is a bit like working in a sweet factory; it's very difficult to get the sugar out of your pores. Apologies for any offence caused.

I don't think that the anti-development of the response to Newman was just because it was Newman or just because it was the 19thC. I think that Protestantism - in its non-liberal forms, sees itself as simply going straight back to scripture. Development is out because tradition is out. Of course, you can still have developments of some sorts - you change your hymn book for example. But anything relating to doctrinal or moral development is - to say the least - highly problematic in this context.

That's why I asked Mrs Proudie to clarify what she was referring to in terms of guardianship.

I think we can defend the CofE on this one. The question relating the oaths etc. is whether the Queen in signing this law has been faithful to the CofE and to God. Even if one draws the conclusion that she has not, that leaves the CofE entirely untouched, I think.

Godspeed with the crusade against New Atheism. Their arrogance is matched only by their ignorance.

Take a look at the website of the Cambridge based Faraday Institute for the study of Religion and Science, if you are interested in exploring the complementarity of those fields of study, and the oneness of God within and behind both Faith and Science. It provides plenty of anti-Dawkins ammunition.

Brother Ivo, Anything that refocuses on the timeless beauty and wisdom of the Psalms is good in my book. In times of trouble, in need of solace and strengthening, it is to that book that I turn. And it always delivers.

The anti-papism and anti-Catholicism of the 1840s was still vicious; ritualist Anglican clergy could still be imprisoned as late as the 1880s, and the 1830s saw widespread anti-Catholic riots. Anglican doctrine was still defined by Parliament and enforced by the Courts, and Parliament was full of people who might not have been particularly theological but who knew papism when they saw it and didn't like it. Newman's ideas never stood a snowball in hell's chance of being officially accepted at the time, whatever that might have meant, but by 1845 he'd figured that out for himself. It was another 40 years before Anglo-Catholicism began to be accepted as standard procedure.

The point about the way Protestantism is practiced in the Church of England is that practically anything you like can be presented as Scriptural; as you rightly pointed out above, with no living teaching authority, who's to say whether it's Scriptural or not? Parliament and the courts did once, but by the end of the 18th century they were pretty Latitudinarian about it - just not Latitudinarian enough yet to accept the Anglo-Catholics without a struggle.

Non-liberal Protestantism has to deal with the development of doctrine too, it just tends to adopt a more-or-less arbitrary cut-off point after which the Church ceased to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and any further developments were judged illegitimate and heretical. In 1845 the Church of England was still pretty non-liberal by today's standards.

@ Darter NosterClearly you have never heard of Keble or the Oxford Movement.As for Queen Victoria's rather brief birth announcement, nobody made too much fuss about babies in 1819 as so many of them did not survive infancy. Also there might have been a younger brother born after her, in which case she would not have inherited the throne. She was only the heir presumptive, not the heir apparent, but William's son is now the heir apparent.

It is a shame that Her Majesty made her position as supreme governor of the Church of England untenable as she has compromised her church totally by enacting the sanctification of sodomy, a activity God abhors Lev 20 : 13.

Well said David Hussell as "same sex activity is [now] blessed or even condoned by The Church of England many valuable priests and lay members, me included, will ponder their futures, temporal and eternal."

Interestingly Bishop Nicolas of Salisbury, he of the apostate church, called a meeting of the Salisbury diocese clergy last week and was rightfully given a very hard time of it because of this. Some, like David above, are considering their future with the Organisation. As a ex-angican, as a direct result of this issue, I can assure that there is a fruitful spiritual life outside the blasphemy that now is the Anglican Church, the monarchy included.

If someone indulges in sin, acts contrary to the Bible's teaching of God's will, whatever it might be, and is known that they do so, and they show no intention of ceasing, then indeed they should be disbarred from the Lord's table. Indeed, if you turn to 1 Corinthians 1, then you find they should in fact be disbarred from the congregation of all believers.

The monarchy and the Church of England were fatally wounded by the Queen's enactment of this wicked legislation on Wednesday last week, 17th July.

It is not "love" to leave a sinner in his or her sin, in fact it is quite the opposite. Our Lord called us to preach the Gospel to all nations and to all creatures not to ignore them and leave them to eternal damnation in the lake of fire. The Queen and the Church of England have abdicated their God given calling.

Dear Albert, once again I must thank you for your courteous reply...the Church of England is very dear to me, as befits the wife of a bishop, and I have to confess to feeling a little battered and bruised over recent developments, but I shall squeeze myself firmly into the stays of mutability and keep my chin up. Do pop round to the palace for tea as soon as you can, an afternoon's conversazzione (as Signora Neroni would say) would be most pleasant. I have Hobnobs...

Naomi, had you noticed the dearth of press coverage of the Royal Assent to the same-sex marriage bill? Pink News readers are bitterly disappointed, putting it down to homophobia (well, they would, wouldn't they?) I suspect quite a few people don't even know that it has happened. The headline of the Daily Mail, instead of saying 'Queen violates coronation oath by assenting to same-sex marriage' carried something along the lines of 'Queen wishes the royal baby would hurry up because she is going on holiday'.

Does the Daily Mail really not know? I wondered. Or are they trying to shield Her Maj on the eve of her great-grandmotherhood? Or (worse) sheilding Cameron. At least the Queen didn't have a choice.

The Telegraph's John Bingham covered it, but again no headlines, and it was in one or two other papers, but it did seem as if a blanket had been put over the whole thing.

Non-liberal Protestantism has to deal with the development of doctrine too, it just tends to adopt a more-or-less arbitrary cut-off point after which the Church ceased to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and any further developments were judged illegitimate and heretical.

Yes, agreed. I think that was part of Newman's insight - whether we like it or not, doctrine develops. Prior to Newman (and his age, anyway) this does not seem to have been grasped, and this made Protestant forms of Christianity viable. But once development is found to be inherent, and in any case, caught up in all positions, there is a need to look elsewhere.

Summer is hot, and the sweat flows, but the Lord refreshes. He is always at work redeeming the lost and encouraging the thirsty and the beaten down, especially of those whose hope is in His Son. Knowing the presence of the Lord and His goodness makes it very difficult to imagine what it would be like if we were not believers, or how we would even have any meaningful life.

Maybe the left leaning press has no regard for The Royal Assent, being only concerned with the "democratic" elements of governance. Meanwhile the socially conservative leaning media and press, what little there is of it, is somewhere between being bemused and exasperated by the whole undemocratic imposition of this Cameron led destructive project to redefine, so much, for everyone. For the "benefit" of a few the new tyranny of relativism surges forward. Who would believe a word that springs from his lips again ?

I love a theological spat - especially with Anglican Protestants - as much as any recalcitrant Left-footer - but perhaps 24 hours without rubbing the 'Hand of Cranmer's' nose in the complete disconnect between his Platonic Form 'Anglican Monarchy' and the actual reality of the Anglican Monarchs isn't too much to ask, is it?

Just from an anthropological point of view it's fascinating to see what Anglicanism is mutating in to.

And Hand of Cranmer does make a very good point:

"take your tiresome battle directly to The Tablet and pin your theses on its heretical door? They claim to be Roman Catholic; His Grace does not. Surely they are more worthy of your correction-and-rebuke mantra, since they purport to belong to your church?"

So here's a wonderful joke about mutations:

Q: What happens when you cross a Jehovah Witness with a Christian Universalist?

A: Someone who'll spend 6 hours trying to convince you that you don't have to believe in anything at all....

Like many commentators here I consider SSM to be deplorable and no good will come of it but the villains in this saga are the EU and the Westminster europhile cabal, not Her Majesty. The equalities brigade pushed the matter through at European level hence the rush for several countries to get this into law during 2013 so the ECHR can declare SSM as an EU wide human right. What is notable about the UK legislation is that religious bodies have to opt in if they want to offer SSM and the CofE is prohibited by law from doing so. Therefore even the advocates of moral laxity within the CofE are still prevented by law from sanctifying sodomy.

Rather than condemning Her Majesty, it might be wiser to consider the possibility that she might actually be the person who achieved this legal protection. Perhaps she reminded the PM that she would never break her Coronation Oath and threatened to use the royal veto if he put her in an impossible position.

There are those who hold Office within the CofE who are failing to maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel but I don't think the Supreme Governor is among them.

When the C of E adds contemporary, occasional prayers, one wishes that it would use the proper titles. To pray for "William and Catherine" implies a degree of familiarity with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to which very few of us can lay claim. They could have inserted the titles after William and Catherine but I suppose we must be thankful that it was not "Wills and Kate".

A refreshing perspective, and factually true I believe. The conjecture regarding "the double lock" too may be true. It provides a breathing space. But one would be unrealistically optimistic not to be deeply concerned for the future position, in law, of all committed , orthodox Christians in this country. Many Anglicans like myself are becoming very thoughtful about the whole situation.

Having made my career and built my business interests, I am in the fortunate position of being able to speak relatively freely, but one fears for all engaged in public sector occupations or companies concerned with the ever expanding equalities agenda. In times past Dissenters could open their own enterprises, but the long hand of our current "liberal" EU driven regime extends almost everywhere. So where do they run to ? There are no new colonies to found.

We need a strong , spirited resurgence of free speech and liberty, for all, backed by deep intellectual credibility and financed by those with deep pockets. Ukip is the only political tool that we have at present, in that direction, but it will need to grow in strength considerably.

May I remind you that Her Majesty is Sovereign over all her people not just the Church of England ... 'When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.'

Her coronation oath was to do all in her power to uphold the Gospel, she has not done so. She has compromised herself, her church, her people and her inheritance.

A consequence of this will be that believing Christians will not be able to work in Government paid employment or Government run quangos without fatally compromising the Gospel. Over 50% of all employment in this country is now provided by Government or quasi Government bodies.

Christians will be pushed out of the public square and positions of social and political influence.

I share your deep concern about the future of free speech and religious expression. There is a relentless advance of something really sinister gaining ground everywhere, enforcing conformity to a atheistic socially-engineered worldview. Unless the tide can be turned the employment prospects and wellbeing of dissenters will be bleak.

The interesting factor in this SSM issue is the attitude of Germany. I know there's the equivalent of civil partnerships (eg same-sex couples have the same tax breaks as married couples) but, as I understand it, anything further has encountered resistance.

That doesn't mean SSM won't happen in Germany, but one might have expected the leading light of the EU to be the first to implement it, if it is, indeed, EU driven.

After the filth put in front of his great grandma to sign last week, one rather hopes that any request by our self serving, expenses unreliable, society degenerating vile untrustworthy lying deceitful hateworthy mischievous politicians eager for an ego gratifying photo shoot with the child be firmly and politely declined. And the originator of said request to be personally contacted by a senior male member of the family and told to ‘Piss Off’.

That includes Cameron and Clegg, the two biggest Barsty Horribolds of the lot, as Stanley Unwin would no doubt have called them…

The abruptness and finality of the bar on the CoE re SSM was so incredibly stark, that it can only be explained by the hand of the monarch moving behind the scenes. She did as much as she could, and all backstage. Of course 100% the way it has always happened.

Noting that there are MPs who are unable to sleep properly because there is a Gentleman only golf club in existence, it beggars belief that our social re-engineers should have given up without a fight.

However there is hope for sanity. One further notes that ladies only bathing sessions in local authority pools are unlikely to be under threat by the new ‘equality’ sweeping the country, as indeed will neither the whole concept of women’s only sport, which should really should be opened up to men too by these blighters own wisdom. It of course goes without saying that ladies changing rooms may survive too.

So much for universal equality then. Must be what it’s always been, and nothing less – persecution by the cultural liberals of a society they despise…

So the plan is to get it in all the other countries and then impose it on Poland? In that case, though, there was obviously no EU reason at present for us to have it yet, and doing so will simply be used to quash freedom and reason in Poland. So I think this shows, yes, we should blame our government, much more than we blame the EU.

No one would doubt that with this abolition of meaningful marriage, something very serious indeed has been foisted on us, by politicians with so little understanding of humanity, that "they know not what they do." Its consequences will be slow to gather pace but deep reaching, I am sure.

Whilst being very disappointed that Her Majesty signed this Bill into law, having myself some experience of politics in one sphere, and therefore being aware of how one has to deal with the "real politic", not ones preferred positions, I desist from being too accusatory or hard on her. That leaves me still deeply disappointed. However we will never know what conversations flowed between Her and that PM, and what she may have managed to salvage, or whether more could have been done.

Off now for a while to Mr Putin's Russia where institutions such as marriage and The Church are treated with rather more respect than in the formerly free West.

I don't know how they will proceed with implementation.There had to be a critical mass of countries willing to oblige before the ECHR felt it could declare SSM to be a Human Right.All the national governments involved and the EU are to blame in my view. I hope they will encounter spirited resistance from all quarters.

Jay Bee, ... "What evidence do you have to demonstrate she has failed to do her utmost to maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?"

At this time of personal and national crisis it is a tragedy that her Majesty failed to draw upon the example of her ancestor King George III who famously declared, “Where is the power on Earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that Coronation oath, particularly the one requiring me to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion? … No, no, I had rather beg my bread from door to door throughout Europe, than consent to any such measure. I can give up my crown and retire from power. I can quit my palace and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my life, but I cannot break my oath.” What a tragedy that Queen Elizabeth did not have such depth of faith, conviction of right and wrong and strength in truth as her forebear George the Third.

King Baudouin of Belgium, faced in 1990 legalisation for abortion in Belgium, whilst he was the reigning Monarch. He refused to sign. Thereby he absolved himself of the blood guilt.

Our Queen gave an oath containing "to do all in her power" she could have refused to give Royal Assent. It was surely within her power to refuse to comply ? In her capacity as Sovereign she has enacted a wicked law thereby she has undoubtedly broken her oath to God at her Coronation. There will be judgement both to her personally and to her Nation.

In December 1989 King Baudoin describes the impending political battle. “The vise closes in on me over the problem of abortion.... My God, all of this forces me to seek support in You alone.” As parliament, his cabinet of ministers, and the press pressured him to sign the law, he confesses his utter solitude. “I have set sail alone with my conscience and God.” One brief phrase encapsulates the theological reason why he refused his signature and risked the monarchy: “If I hadn’t done this [refused to sign the abortion law], I would have been sick my entire life for having betrayed the Lord.” I guess the Queen will be sick for the rest of her life for having betrayed her LORD.

On March 31 Baudouin sent a personal note to Prime Minister Maertens informing him of his refusal to sign the abortion law. He stated at length the grounds of his opposition. “This bill poses a grave problem of conscience for me. I fear that in effect it will be understood by a large part of the population as an authorization to practice abortion during the first twelve weeks after conception. I also have serious worries about the clause permitting abortion to be practiced beyond twelve weeks if the child to be born is afflicted with ‘a particularly grave anomaly recognized as incurable at the moment of diagnosis.’ Thus you will clearly understand why I do not want to be associated with this law.”

Anticipating the inevitable criticism of his refusal to sign the law as an attack on democratic rights, King Baudouin asserted his own right to freedom of conscience. “I know by acting in this way I have not chosen an easy path and that I risk not being understood by many of my fellow citizens. To those who may be shocked by my decision, I ask them: Is it right that I am the only Belgian citizen to be forced to act against his conscience in such a crucial area? Is the freedom of conscience sacred for everyone except for the king?”

As a stunned parliament and nation learned of the king’s decision, Belgium appeared on the verge of constitutional collapse. With a parliament determined to maintain a law it had passed by a large majority and a king opposed to its ratification, the nation faced the abyss.

On April 4, In this moment of crisis, Prime Minister Maertens convoked both houses of parliament, which promptly declared the throne vacant due to the king’s incapacity to govern because of a serious problem of conscience.

During this vacancy Prime Minister Maertens presided over a council of ministers that ratified and promulgated the controversial abortion law.

On April 5 the prime minister reconvoked the parliament, which voted a declaration that, since the king was now capable of governing, given the resolution of his problem of conscience, the throne was once again occupied and the king could resume his constitutional royal powers.

The law was never enacted or ratified by King Baudouin. her Majesty could have chosen a similar course to Geaorge III or King Baudouin but did not. She has enacted an ungodly and wicked law. So as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Monarchy and the Church of England go down shackled together.

The checks and balances in what was supposed to be a tension of the Monarchy, the Established Church and the Government of the day to ensure that none become too powerful and out of control, have gone. The European Union is slowly usurping what we had as the Queen and Church no longer have any real power to do anything, it's all just show and the government of the day can do as they please, and they do, which is very wrong. I admire Prince Charles for taking an interest and writing to the prime minister now and then to question things.

I think we should renew the elastic between the Monarchy, Church and Government in order to strengthen our country against the forces of destruction emanating from Brussels. We have to leave the EU.

What good is a stack of future Kings if they have no influence at all.

I'm afraid it is quite clear that the Queen did fail to do all she could to oppose the wickedness of SSM & I'm heartened by the number of people here who can see that.

But on the matter of this infant prince, I wonder why it is that I see so little desire that he may come to know the Saviour? The prayer issued make not one mention of salvation, which is surely what God save the Queen means. Surely the 39 Articles make it very clear that to be a Christian means that, As Christ said, we must be born again.

Gospel love is declaring the truth regardless of the response. We can't be pragmatic. The reality is, if you're in sin and you've done something wrong, I'm going to tell you what you need to hear, not so much what you want to hear, you may hate me for it but I'm the most loving person for telling you what I'm telling you. It's a hard message to preach. It's hard preaching judgement and the wrath of God. But the reality is that it must be preached. They must foresee that they've sinned against God before they'll ever appreciate the cross of Christ. They will mock and they laugh and they jeer and the blaspheme the name of God. However must understand, we must get our Gospel right. When I am out in this world where it is filled with demonic activity, the Holy Bible says if "a righteous man falls down before the wicked he's worse than a stinking cesspool Proverbs 25 : 26. We've got to stand up and declare truth and righteousness, we've got to confront the darkness with light. Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins. Isaiah 58 : 1

This young prince is going to grow up in a nation that equates buggery with marriage. I wonder whether he will be protected from the corrupt teachings that other children have to suffer. When he grows up, what kind of CofE will be left for him to guard? Will he be interested in guarding it?

I expect that Her Majesty did not make the decision lightly at all, but it was still the wrong decision. Had she refused, and sparked a constitutional crisis, the support for her would have been overwhelming, probably even from those not exercised about SSM.

Sadly, she has set a dangerous precedent. It will be even harder to refuse when she is asked to sign a bill legalising polygamy or "consensual" paedophilia, or incest It is harder to say "No" when you've already said "Yes". She did miss an opportunity to loudly and clearly define the boundaries of what is acceptable to God and to most of her subjects. It would also have put those apostate Bishops to shame, something they richly deserve.

Nick. When he grows up, what kind of CofE will be left for him to guard? Will he be interested in guarding it?

Probably not. He might even have spent much of his formative years with the forthcoming child of Zara Philips, she of tongue stud fame, and her rugby playing husband. God knows what that coupling will produce, intellect wise...

There had to be a critical mass of countries willing to oblige before the ECHR felt it could declare SSM to be a Human Right.

I thought the ECHR had said it wasn't a human right?

Anyway, I think it's pretty clear that our Government isn't changing the law on this because of pressure from the EU, rather, our Government, by changing the law on this, is putting pressure on other EU members.

I don't accept that there would have been a constitutional crisis - if anything there is a constitutional crisis (at least in theory) because she signed it.

All it would have taken is for her to refuse it is, in one of her private chats with the PM - probably a couple of years ago - quietly to tell him that she would not sign such a Bill as it would require her to break her coronation oath. Dave would have stopped pushing it (unless he is particularly stupid), and it would have come to nothing.

The theoretical constitutional crisis arises from the fact that it is plausible that she broke her oath. Assuming her oath is part of the constitution, it follows that signing this Bill is unconstitutional. Now if the Monarch breaks the constitution, because, being unelected, she does not want to oppose an elected House of Commons, then I think serious questions arise as to whether the monarchy can preserve the constitution. That strikes me as being about as serious as it gets.

I suspect that the 'get out' of this is to say it is not evident that gay 'marriage' is contrary to the the Laws of God, as they are expressed in the constitution - i.e. by the CofE (which has been insufficiently firm on this to perhaps prove the point that gay 'marriage' is contrary to the Laws of God).

Bravo Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali who did make this point, and publicly too. But it shows the country is in a real mess, and I am afraid, weakness from many in the CofE is part of the problem.

Inspector @ 18.08 said, 'One further notes that ladies only bathing sessions in local authority pools are unlikely to be under threat by the new ‘equality’ sweeping the country, as indeed will neither the whole concept of women’s only sport, which should really should be opened up to men too by these blighters own wisdom. It of course goes without saying that ladies changing rooms may survive too.'

You may find that the Muslim community would not have it otherwise, pursuant to sharia.

Albert @ 20.45 says, 'Now if the Monarch breaks the constitution, because, being unelected, she does not want to oppose an elected House of Commons, then I think serious questions arise as to whether the monarchy can preserve the constitution. That strikes me as being about as serious as it gets.'

A moot point indeed. One could argue that every general election ratifies the entire constitution as it stands at that point. In which case the Monarch's notionally non-elected status is implicitly re-confirmed at each GE.

It's probably extremely important not to try and confirm the Monarch's position by way of a referendum which may in itself create precedents which threaten other aspects of the Settlement.

One could argue that every general election ratifies the entire constitution as it stands at that point. In which case the Monarch's notionally non-elected status is implicitly re-confirmed at each GE.

I really don't see how! Having said that, it's pretty clear that the Queen is far more popular than Dave, it's just that her role is never submitted to vote (nor could it be).

Whatever the situation, it goes to show again, quite how squalid this Government is.

Goodness...but what if private objections were raised by Her Majesty during the weekly audiences, but the Prime Minister ignored her objections and reminded her that she, like the rest of us, is a citizen of the EU? It seems to me that our constitution, or what is left of it, needs to be rebalanced again...

Done some more digging and I think you are right about where the pressure was coming from. UK politicians were pushing SSM at the Council of Europe which makes matters worse because the ECHR applies to all of Europe not just the EU. They got enough support from others in rushing it through, notably France. It remains to be seen how resolutely the EU enforces harmonization.

Here's how. The UK has top down Constitution in which a Monarchy has devolved certain privileges such as the right to hold Parliaments and to elect members to that Parliament. Following the various Civil Wars in the 17th century, Parliament has become supreme, but deep in the DNA, that is what one might call the chain of title, in my view. Compare this to the US Constitution which is the manifestation of a grass roots democracy which grew from the bottom up, power being ceded by the people to state and federal legislatures. Completely different constitutional DNA.

My guess is that, at most, The Queen may have insisted there be protections for the CoE, which is why we have these ridiculous multiple lock thingies that will probably end up being undermined anyway, if not via the ECtHR, then possibly from within. I cannot see how a constitutional monarch could have opposed the legislation that redefined the civil definition of marriage.

The blame for this vandalism must lie squarely with Dave and his "modernising" cronies. It will not be forgotten.

While it is difficult to believe that HM didn't have a quiet word at one of the weekly meetings in Dave's shell-like about the predicament he would be putting her in, it is not within her power to veto any legitimate parliamentary bill, however undemocratically this came about. She should have told him to bugger orf in no uncertain terms.

I am pretty sure she is not allowed to air her views which would put her at odds with Parliament.

I agree with William Lewis - Blame Dave, the EU, the Church of England bishops who caved in so weakly (I don't think they even all turned up for the crucial vote). They should not have put the Queen in this position.

Strange times these, with this ‘modernisation’ going on. No doubt the loss of this man’s Conservative vote will be more than made up by grateful LIb-Dem or Green voting queer types suddenly, unexpectantly and unwarrantly changing sides...

Well I think we are all agreed, this child's future has been seriously compromised, both temporally and eternally, by the Queen's Prime Minister, David Cameron. As have the futures of all other children in this land. Shame on us all.

Okay, but I still don't see how that means one can argue that every general election ratifies the entire constitution as it stands at that point. In which case the Monarch's notionally non-elected status is implicitly re-confirmed at each GE.

Put it this way. If I were a republican (which I'm not, though I'm nearer now than before HMQ signed this SSM Law), how does the fact that I vote in an election mean I am ratifying the constitution? It's not a question I'm being asked about.

Yes, it's a pretty stupid situation. But what this means is that the Government is not to be regarded as a kind of victim of EU pressure. No, it comes down to the foolishness of the leader of the Conservative Party.

Why, I'd be delighted :o) My thesis tracks conflict and identity in Anglicanism from the Reformation to the present-day troubles and the Anglican Realignment movement (e.g the Anglican Church in North America and the Anglican Mission in England).

In a couple of months I should have the final examined version, so I'd be very happy to share it with you then :o)

Albert @ 09.08, you do of course vote for a candidate. So consider what you don't vote for at a general election; specifically the whole statute book. In the voting booth, your implicit assumption is that the existing constitutional arrangements will continue unless your candidate supports a party manifesto to the contrary. It follows that by virtue of a negative test your vote is a vote for a continuation of the Monarchy. After all, in the circumstances we are considering there is no suggestion that the Monarchy is to be terminated. In your case it may be necessary to qualify that comment with 'yet', it seems.

It was interesting to see the media attention outside St Mary's hospital yesterday. Pushing & shoving, & yet the King of Kings slipped quietly into human history, with just a few shepherds to meet & greet Him.There's a certain irony in the timing as the Queen has signed Cameron's SSM bill as law, then a much heralded new prince is born & is the centre of so much World attention.It could appear that the Monarch in a difficult position has followed in Pilates footsteps & just washed her hands of the difficulty & not supported the Prince of Peace & King of Kings that she promised to serve at her Coronation. But giving in does not absolve or eradicate the guilt, as Pilate found out.May God Bless all the Royal family, especially the New Prince. But I must say that their is heartfelt sadness for the decision taken.

May God's blessing rest on this child, his parents, grandparents and Her Majesty.

Now to the matter of the Royal Assent to Un-Christian legislation.

It was an earlier generation of Liberal politicians who started this rot in the body politic, by forcing through Parliament the 1912 Parliament Act, itself unconstitutional. That Act, by removing from the House of Lords the right to reject financial Bills, removed one of the Constitutional safeguards against a despotic Prime Minister. It also removed the right of the Monarch to reject government Bills, alleging (falsely) that long disuse rendered the right redundant.

So the so-called Royal Assent to this garbage of an Act on SSM is a misnomer and has nothing to do with Her Majesty. What was once the Royal Prerogative is now the Prime Minister's Prerogative.

We are told that, as a Constitutional Monarch, the Queen cannot go against the advice of Her Ministers. The problem is that we have a Constitutional Monarch, who demonstrates her adherence to Her Coronation Oath by Her life, and an Unconstitutional Parliament full of traitors.

King Charles I lost His head by acting as though he was above the Law. Now, the position is reversed, as there are Ministers, M.P.s and Lords who claim to be above the Law.Save your criticism of Her Majesty and apply it to those who deserve it. Demand a return to the Rule of Law, set out in our historic Constitution.

Goodness, Mr. Wrake, a strong argument well put! I must say I am more at ease blaming the shoddy crew inhabiting Westminster and damning their knavish tricks than I am in accusing Her Majesty of betrayal. There, my nerves are quite smoothed, ironed and pressed now, thanks to you, dear Sir.

An elderly farmer was in the Emergency Ward having stitches put in his hand, due to an accident with a piece of machinery.The doctor carrying out the procedure struck up a conversation with the old man.Eventually the topic got around to Politicians and their role as our leaders.The old farmer said, "Well, you know, most Politicians are 'Post Tortoises'.''

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him, what a 'Post Tortoise' was?The old farmer said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a tortoise balanced on top, that's a post tortoise."

The old farmer, seeing the puzzled look on the doctor's face, continued to explain."You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, he's elevated beyond his ability to function, and you just wonder what kind of dumbass put him up there to begin with."

It also removed the right of the Monarch to reject government Bills, alleging (falsely) that long disuse rendered the right redundant.

Can you give a source for that, please?"

No he can't because the Parliament Act 1911 didn't do that - check it out on legislation.gov.uk.

What it did do was remove the right of the unelected House of Lords to veto the elected House of Commons, and it was passed because King George V had made it clear to the largely Tory peers the year before that the alternative was for him to appoint enough Liberal peers to ensure that they couldn't block the Liberal budget any more. With King Edward VII that might not have happened, but that demonstrates the arbitrary nature of Royal power which makes a Royal veto on legislation so potentially dangerous.

It's all very well getting nostalgic about Royal vetos and the powers of the House of Lords, but but in reality that concentrates an enormous amount of arbitrary power into the hands of a tiny number of people who cannot always be relied upon to be as scrupulous as our present Queen, and I don't honestly believe, what with all the recent struggles against corrupt autocracies, that people seriously think we should go back to that form of governance, even if on this one issue it suits them.

The concentration of arbitrary power that threatens our liberties can now be found elsewhere. Concentrated in the hands of the European Council and the European Commission. Their defining characteristic is a profound dislike of democratic decision-making. These powerful individuals are able to tamper with national government and replace national leaders with their own nominees.

Albert & Darter Noster.The evidence is in the wording of the Act, which you can look up for yourselves.

No good relying on the YouGov website, which repeats the lie that no Bill has been refused Royal Assent since the reign of Queen Anne.

The projected Budget and increases in taxes was the sticking point for the Lords, so their right to send back Financial Bills was removed. The Monarchs right to refuse assent was removed at the same time.

The Liberals under Asquith had absorbed the heady doctrines of Marx and Engels and wanted to assert their superiority over Kings and Lords. The proletariat was on the rise and I'm as good as you was all the rage.

Comrades, the only solution to the decline of the House of Lords into a corrupt rabble is an elected Senate with properly defined powers, as an integral part of a federated UK that includes a subordinate English parliament. At least under the Hereditaries the HofL was a known quantity. Stacked as it is today with the superannuated cronies of the ruling elite, the HofL is a disgrace to British democracy.

I read the same Parliament Act on a different website, and could not find the bit you are talking about. Perhaps DN and I are missing something. Could you kindly quote the part of the Act which makes the point you are defending, please?

The Queen doesn't veto bills from Parliament, it is part of our constitution, unless people want to go back to the days when legislation was cherry picked by the Monarch (I think that Bagehot said something about this, or at least that's what I remember from my alma mater, St Trinian's.)

If posters here want that then they can go to America where the President can veto bills (albeit unless 2/3rds of the Congress disagree).

I do not quite understand why people are so agitated about the fact that the Queen didn't veto SSM, when she presumably signed the laws of the 1960s legalising gay sex and that of the 1970s, allowing Britain to join the EU. I think that if the Queen had vetoed the SSM Bill, then (as in 1911) a bill would have been passed to stop the Monarch from vetoing any legislation....

The comparison with the Belgium guy is a bit strange. He didn't veto the legislation, so if anyone was a "pilate" it was him, as he agreed he couldn't sign the legislation (note, when it had ALREADY passed the legislature), so the Parliament said he couldn't be the King for a day and decided to take control to pass the abortion legislation through (Wiki says the Parliament acted as a collective King or something).

PS-the last time Britain was a republic it was of a fundamentalist, Protestant variety. Yep, didn't think you'd want that! Better wishy washy liberal Anglicans, than that....(?).

I appreciate the Cyber Swiss Guard dislikes the Monarchy because of wot happened 500 years ago and the terrible stuff of the reformation and Ireland and all the other horrid stuff English people/and or Anglicans are guilty as charged of (the main theme here by our 'robust' Catholics)....

(not that the Popes are in any way, shape or form a kind Monarchy...)

But, just for a second, try taking the consequences towards a group of 'Christ Killers' because of a claim/belief that happened 2,000 years ago and you might be able to be, ahem, a bit more chippy on the shoulder...

Jolly good show! Britain will have and always should have a Monarch. And a robust second chamber to keep the dam socialists in the place!

Which reminds me -

Bluedog,

It would appear you have been yet again supping with Anubis and Cerberus! An "elected" House of Lords???!

What what utter Poppy Cock! Now, the real 'reform' of the House of Lords is to banish ALL life peers and allow the hereditary peers back. I will meet you half way and agree that the hereditary peers could elect-say- 100 or so bods to sit in the Lords for the life of each Parliament.

But letting the mob into the House of Lords is akin to wanting an elected Monarchy! In Britain? Unthinkable !

Milord @ 01.09, your correspondent fully understands your concerns but is sure that his suggestions are all for the best. At the heart of your objection may be the thought that a monarchy can not survive without an aristocracy, the monarchy being the pinnacle of the aristocracy. Now there was a time when the aristocracy, as owners of the principal means of production, being rural land, had economic power which was translated into political power. Since the industrial revolution, other means of production have become dominant, conferring political power on a different demographic. If you want an example of what I mean, go no further than the ageing Rupert Murdoch, who wields extraordinary influence on three continents. Here is a commercial prince indeed, and thanks to his skilful use of tax havens, his heirs and successors will inherit their father's power base, unaffected by death duties. There is little doubt that death duties have successfully destroyed the economic power of most of the British aristocracy, as they were intended to do. Your correspondent does not believe that the British people would accept the return to power of an unaccountable hereditary elite, recent article by Peter Odone in the DT notwithstanding.

Is there a politician who would dare to prove me wrong? Highly unlikely in the present Parliament, and UKIP have no such pretensions either.

The hound always laughs into his Pedigree Chum when Cameron is lauded for his descent from a mistress of George IV. A Hanoverian? OMG!

I appreciate the Cyber Swiss Guard dislikes the Monarchy because of wot happened 500 years ago

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Hannah. The people making the strongest comments against the Queen giving her royal assent, are Protestants. Personally, I am much more in favour of monarchy than any other system, however, this particular issue has exposed what I think may be a weakness in our system.

The Queen doesn't veto bills from Parliament, it is part of our constitution, unless people want to go back to the days when legislation was cherry picked by the Monarch

Yes, but let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Queen in signing this Bill has broken her coronation oath (Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?) . That oath is also part of the constitution (I take it). So why would she do such a thing? She would do so, because, as an unelected head of state, she thinks should not go against the will of an elected parliament.

But that also means there is no power in this country to uphold the constitution against the will of parliament. Now that's a pretty serious situation - remember (sorry to be an example of Godwin's Law) the Enabling Act that gave Hitler supreme power in Germany came from a democratically elected Parliament. Having someone whose job it is to defend the constitution against the whims of parliament is vital. It seems on this understanding that we do not have such a person.

Now someone might say that this is too melodramatic and that the oath is simply ceremonial - she's not expected to keep it. But if the Queen does not have to keep her oath to God, why should anyone have to keep their oaths to the Queen? Again, that's a pretty serious consitutional outcome.

I do not quite understand why people are so agitated about the fact that the Queen didn't veto SSM, when she presumably signed the laws of the 1960s legalising gay sex and that of the 1970s, allowing Britain to join the EU.

Because in neither can it be argued that she broke her oath. Joining the EU has nothing to do with the Laws of God. The legalising of gay sex was supported by the CofE at the time (rightly in my view), and thus, as constitutionally, the laws of God are interpreted for the Queen by the CofE, it follows she did not break her oath.

Finally, in further response to the Cyber Swiss Guard comment, I would add that as a Catholic, I would like to see the oath changed. But, while this Queen is on the throne, the constitution includes what she promised then. If she has been made, by the leader of the Conservative Party, to break her constitutional oath, then that means the PM has created a dangerous constitutional situation. That is the point I am making. I can't comment for anyone else.

The comparison with the Belgium guy is a bit strange. He didn't veto the legislation, so if anyone was a "pilate" it was him, as he agreed he couldn't sign the legislation (note, when it had ALREADY passed the legislature), so the Parliament said he couldn't be the King for a day and decided to take control to pass the abortion legislation through (Wiki says the Parliament acted as a collective King or something).

According to Naomi, the King was effectively deposed, without his consent, by Parliament, for a day. Thus, at the time of abortion passing into law, he had no more power to veto it that you did. (Of course, that raises the question of whether that law was valid, but that's another matter.)

'In 1990, when a law submitted by Roger Lallemand and Lucienne Herman-Michielsens, liberalising Belgium's abortion laws, was approved by Parliament, he refused to give Royal Assent to the bill. This was unprecedented; although Baudoin was nominally Belgium's chief executive, Royal Assent has long been a formality (as is the case in most constitutional and popular monarchies). However, due to his religious convictions, Baudouin asked the Government to declare him temporarily unable to reign so that he could avoid signing the measure into law.[3] The Government under Wilfried Martens complied with his request on 4 April 1990. According to the provisions of the Belgian Constitution, in the event the King is temporarily unable to reign, the Government as a whole fulfills the role of Head of State. All members of the Government signed the bill, and the next day (5 April 1990) the Government declared that Baudouin was capable of reigning again.'

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)